Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0111 No. 1 CA-CR 14-0119 No. 1 CA-CR 14-0121
12-23-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MIGUEL RAMIREZ, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender, Phoenix By Paul J. Prato Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Nos. CR2012-005979-001, CR2013-114320-001, CR2011-048435-001
The Honorable Pamela D. Svoboda, Judge
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender, Phoenix
By Paul J. Prato
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. BROWN, Judge:
¶1 Miguel Ramirez appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of misconduct involving weapons and the resulting sentences imposed for probation violations. Counsel for Ramirez filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising that after searching the record on appeal, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. Ramirez was granted the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so.
¶2 Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible error. State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Ramirez. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989).
¶3 The State charged Ramirez with misconduct involving weapons, a class 4 felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-3102. The State also alleged that Ramirez committed the instant offense while on probation for possession of drug paraphernalia and solicitation of forgery. The following evidence was presented at trial.
¶4 On March 28, 2013, Detectives Kuhn and Herman were investigating an unrelated matter at a motel in Phoenix when they heard shots being fired. As they exited the lobby of the motel, they observed Ramirez and two other men running down a stairway from the second floor of the motel. The detectives stopped the men and told them to get on the ground. Ramirez hesitated, but eventually complied. Kuhn asked the men if they had any weapons, and Ramirez informed the detectives he had a weapon in his waistband. He also admitted he was on probation and was prohibited from possessing a firearm because he had not paid the requisite fines to have his right to possess firearms restored.
¶5 A jury found Ramirez guilty as charged, and then determined he was on probation for two offenses at the time of the instant offense. Prior to sentencing, the trial court found Ramirez was previously convicted of two felonies. The court sentenced Ramirez to the presumptive term of ten years' imprisonment, with 277 days of presentence incarceration credit. With respect to the probation violation matters, Ramirez was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for each count, to run consecutive to each other and the instant offense. Ramirez timely appealed.
Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.8(e), if there is a finding of guilt "of a criminal offense by a probationer in a court having jurisdiction over the probation matter, no violation hearing shall be required and the court shall set the matter down for a disposition hearing at the time set for entry of judgment on the criminal offense."
¶6 To obtain a conviction for misconduct involving weapons pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4), the State was required to prove that Ramirez possessed a prohibited weapon while a prohibited possessor. Ramirez's admissions to the arresting officers, together with the presence of a weapon in his waistband, satisfied each of these elements.
¶7 Because Ramirez committed this offense while on probation, the court was required to revoke Ramirez's probation and impose a prison term, consecutive to the other sentences from which Ramirez was temporarily released, not less than the presumptive sentence. A.R.S. § 13-708(C). Calculating his presentence incarceration from his arrest date on March 28, 2013 and his sentencing date on January 24, 2014, Ramirez was entitled to 302 days of presentence incarceration credit, instead of the 277 days as ordered by the trial court. We therefore correct the sentencing minute entry to reflect that Ramirez is entitled to 302 days of presentence incarceration credit.
¶8 We have searched the entire record for reversible error and, except for the presentence incarceration error noted above, we find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in accordance with Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record shows Ramirez was present at all pertinent proceedings and was represented by counsel. Ramirez had an opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Accordingly, we affirm Ramirez's conviction and the resulting sentence, as modified, as well as the revocation of probation and resulting sentences.
¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Ramirez of the status of the appeal and his options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Ramirez shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.